- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:51:11 +0200
- To: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
- Cc: WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
On 28 Oct 2011, at 11:24, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote: > My proposals to references in WebID spec: > 1. section 2.1: > "Alternate RDF serialization formats, such as N3 [N3] or Turtle [TURTLE], may be supported by the mechanism providing the WebID Profile document." > Most N3 documents is compatible with the Turtle (Turtle is subset of N3). These simple solutions like WebID most used Turtle. I believe that there is no need to list here N3, especially when it is not a complete list of serialisations. I agree that sadly there are not many complete N3 parsers, so we should use turtle. > Additionally, RDF Working Group concludes that they will not standardize N3 (they focus on Turtle). > 2. section 2.1 - the same paragraph > I propose to add RDF serbialization based on JSON. It is more > It is often used in web environments. I propose RDF/JSON [1]. RDF/JSON is created by RDF Working Group. Just above you say that we should not making a list of all serialisations. Now you want one more, that is not standard. As we have only very few people whole have implemented the EARL reports for their endpoint, I also find it difficult for the moment to tell where we are standing. http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/Test_Suite Having so many serialisations is probably starting to look a bit silly, especially for people coming from the hard nosed security world. Before adding json I would even prefer to add plain PEM files for that community. Perhaps we should have a version of this protocol as an RFC which just uses the PEM file? > 3. I suggest to change Turtle references to more actual [2] that's a good idea > > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-json/index.html# > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/ > > Best, > Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 09:52:14 UTC